Jump to content

Freeholder's permission for house extensions.

Recommended Posts

I currently have planning consents to build a front porch and modest, single-storey extension and downstairs WC and shower to my terraced home within the Conservation area of a village in the National Park.

My property is leasehold (comparatively short) although was built not very many years back and the freeholder objected to my planning applications (which have been designed, partly, to enable me to remain in my home as long as possible in my older years). The freeholder or ground landlord has been generally unhelpful on other matters in the past. His argument against my proposals were brief and quoted ' over-development' as the grounds but were noted, dismissed and disregarded by local planners and national planning inspector.

Please could anybody advise me how I should now proceed?

I have, so far, simply advised the freeholder that I intend to commence building. Has anyone else been in this position and what's the simplest way ahead having complied with all the requirements of the planners?

Ironically, if my property had been on the other side of the adjacent road, outside the Conservation Area, the porch would not have required consent!

I know I have the right to seek to purchase the freehold but don't feel this is necessary being in my seventies with no family.

Edited by johnlittle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it not necessary? Clearly they are generally obstructive and a total pain the rear so it makes sense to cut them out of the picture.

 

You say there is little time remaining on your leasehold?

How long roughly?

 

If it is not long it makes the property very difficult to sell when you need to, this is another reason why buying the freehold reversion is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised by the implication that a Planning Department can override a Lease. I am not sure that is the case. The Lease is between the Leaseholder and the Freehold and if it says the Freeholder's consent is required for alterations of this nature then, surely, it is? Because a Planning Department has approved the plans surely cannot mean it overrides the Lease? Surely a Planning Department wouldn't get involved in any such aspects of this?

 

I may well be confused. It seems to me like your Plans have been approved by the Planners, but not by the Freeholder and I would, therefore, think they stop there.

 

Ironically, if my property had been on the other side of the adjacent road, outside the Conservation Area, the porch would not have required consent!

 

Of the Planners, only, surely? It would still require the consent of the Freeholder (if your Lease stated it did - which you would expect, but can never be sure of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments geared.

 

There is a little over 100 years left on the lease and the ground rent is £35. Having researched the benefits of purchasing the freehold, I decided that it was probably best to spend my resources on improving and adapting my property for my own benefit.

 

I'm aware that the freeholder must have reasonable grounds to object which, in my opinion, they do not possess and the property should still be easily sold by my heirs as they are, fortunately, in high demand.

 

The extensions are entirely within my property boundaries and I believe I can serve notice on the freeholder under the Landlord & Tenant Act, quoting the appropriate Section, and stating my intent to build after giving them time to respond but I am hoping to ensure all goes smoothly and I'm not drawn into any complications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised by the implication that a Planning Department can override a Lease.

 

I didn't see that this was implied.

 

Going back to the OP, if the lease says that you need permission then ignoring that could result in you later having to demolish the porch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Hippo.

 

I am not inferring that planners may overide the lease, simply that their planning decision applies to and supports the merits of the submitted proposals. The freeholder must have reasonable grounds to object in the face of the planning decision and cannot, as I understand it, simply be awkward for the sake of it. In fact, as the alterations will add to the value of the property, they would benefit from this should the lease run to completion when what is built on the land must be handed over in good condition.

 

I understand most properties are freehold around here but where any are not and lie outside the Conservation Area, the freeholder still has to have reasonable grounds to refuse consent even for small porches such as my proposed one which is within national guidelines for consent without the need to apply for planning permission.

 

My own property has all development rights withdrawn but the ground landlord must still have reasonable grounds of objection especially in the face of professional or expert decisions. I believe it was Lord Denning who laid down the ' principle of reasonableness' in a ruling many years ago.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2017 at 13:57 ----------

 

Thank you Cyclone. Indeed, which is why I don't wish to ignore the need to obtain consent ( however reluctantly given) and wish to proceed correctly and hopefully without too many obstacles.

 

There is history between the freeholder and myself as when the properties were built, they (being also the developer) laid down a boundary incorrectly which caused my allocated parking spaces (which I own) to be obstructed, contrary to the lease, and, after much inaction, they were required to relay the boundary at their expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would double check with a professional (Ie Jeffrey Shaw on here) before undertaking any work. It's prudent to make double sure you have everything correct before undertaking any expensive building work.

 

I would still buy the freehold reversion, it does make a property more enticing when you come to sell, also some banks/lenders can get funny if there is not many years left on the lease (not sure if it's under 100 years or less??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree it's best to have professional advice and am rather hoping Jeffrey Shaw might comment! I've spoken to a retired solicitor friend this afternoon who pointed out that solicitors might often differ in opinion but agreed with me that I should write to the freeholder giving notice to commence building in accordance with the planning consents and that, as per Landlord & Tenant Act (Section ?) ,any reasonable objection they have should be made within, say, 28 days. If I do this I feel I shall have acted reasonably!

 

Regarding purchase of the freehold reversion it is a little complicated in that there are eleven cottages (including mine) and we each have a share in a joint parking area and footpath. The freeholder has repairs to the parking area done periodically and splits the cost equally and I'm not sure if, or how,I would still be required to contribute. At the moment, it is not a great amount but I doubt that others would wish to buy their freeholds.

I gather that, as a general rule, 80 is the ' magic number ' of remaining years before purchase becomes increasingly expensive and I agree that having a lease with less than, say, 100 years remaining might, generally, make properties harder to sell but, fortunately, there is little difficulty selling my type of house hereabouts and I doubt that I shall be around long enough to trouble Her Majesty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lease says that they need to give permission, then I doubt that they need to have "reasonable" grounds to object, unless the law says so somewhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the Act states so or that permission cannot be witheld unreasonably. Also, that the general principle of ' reasonableness' has been recognised to apply as a general rule to any action questionable in law as well as the standing ('locus standii') of the objector who must not be a mere 'busy body'. In my circumstances, the freeholder certainly has the right to object but the grounds must be reasonable in the eyes of the law.

I'm not a solicitor but I think this is correct. It might also be stated in the lease.

Edited by johnlittle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In granting planning permission, the local authority takes no account of whether the property is leasehold or freehold. I know of a very similar situation - the owner gained planning permission but did not read their lease first. Had they done so, they would have saved a lot of money and time because development was not allowed and the company would not give permission.

 

You need to employ a solicitor before you start building or it could be an expensive mistake. Building work is usually quite stressful and you have the added problem of the lease so it is worse. You say you have history with the company - maybe it is affecting your view of the issue. Perhaps you should forget about that. Stress and hassle is probably something most of us would try and avoid. If the house doesn't meet the needs of advancing years, why not consider moving while you are fit enough to deal with it? Alternatively, why not just have a stair lift installed? It would be a much cheaper and less stressful option.

Edited by Jomie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments Jomie. It was other similar situations and outcomes which I'm interested in hearing about.

 

Having taken over three years to proceed this far, it is certainly not free from stress and, whilst I personally acknowledge the right of the freeholder, I also feel they may be prejudiced in their actions by previous events. It may be that any decision could be subject to judicial review but that seems more stressful and out of proportion to my request to improve my home so I can more easily live in it.

 

The properties here were originally proposed to be for 'local need' and suitable for elderly or less mobile persons to 'downsize' to from elsewhere in our village. This, however, was never formalised but the homes are the most convenient for the elderly in the village.

 

Having resided here for over twenty years, close to shops, public transport, doctor's surgery, dentist, optician, mobile library, and many other facilities including wonderful local walks I'm reluctant to move from a very convenient place especially at the whim of the freeholder.

 

Thank you for your helpful suggestions although I'm not quite ready for a stairlift just yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.